Sometimes, sports metaphors have absolutely no use. Thanks to some ignoble history with Iraq, this is firmly the case with calling intelligence a “slam dunk.”
There’s a big story out from the Associated Press Thursday morning that cites multiple U.S. officials saying that the intelligence tying Bashar al-Assad’s regime to the recent alleged chemical weapons attacks in Syria is “not a slam dunk.” The story refutes, through anonymous sources at least, President Obama’s claim on PBS Wednesday night that his administration has “concluded that the Syrian government in fact carried these [chemical attacks] out.”
And there’s more from the AP on just what the U.S. doesn’t know:
Intelligence officials say they could not pinpoint the exact locations of Assad’s supplies of chemical weapons, and Assad could have moved them in recent days as U.S. rhetoric builds. That lack of certainty means a possible series of U.S. cruise-missile strikes aimed at crippling Assad’s military infrastructure could hit newly hidden supplies of chemical weapons, accidentally triggering a deadly chemical attack.
Which sounds like a delight. The AP also says that a “quest for added intelligence to bolster the White House’s case for a strike” is the reason that an intelligence report has not yet been released publicly.
The thing is, though, no amount of intelligence is ever really a “slam dunk.” That’s because a “slam dunk” belongs in professional basketball, not in intelligence-gathering parlance. Because, sometimes, when it shows up there, very bad things happen.
Take former CIA Director George Tenet. In December 2002, as the administration of George W. Bush was looking into a possible attack on Iraq, Tenet told the president that “it’s a slam dunk case” that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. The Washington Post‘s Bob Woodward said that, in an interview with the president, Bush told him that ” ‘slam dunk’ is, as I interpreted it, a sure thing, guaranteed.” Tenet, while he admits to using the phrase, doesn’t think it had — or deserved to have — much of an impact on the president’s thinking.
In real-life sports, a slam dunk isn’t even guaranteed. Just ask Michael Jordan. If you really need a basketball analogy for a fool-proof thing, maybe try a layup. But even that can go wrong. And the overuse of “slam dunks” in sports analogies is really rather lazy. Slam dunks may be the most obvious go-to, flashy component of basketball. But they’re by no means the most beautiful or exciting part of the game.
But, really, if an intelligence “slam dunk” is what led the U.S. to believe there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, wouldn’t we all be better served by, you know, no more slam dunks? Based on recent history, you could really make the case that not having slam dunk intelligence in Syria is actually a good thing. Which is confusing!
This needs to be stopped. But luckily, there’s a pretty simple way of knowing when you’ve correctly slam-dunked.
If after dunking, you look like this …CIA Director George Tenet before the Sept. 11 Commission on Capitol Hill Wednesday, April 14, 2004. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)
… then you’ve done something terribly wrong.
What you’re looking for is something a bit more like this:Oklahoma City Thunder point guard Russell Westbrook after dunking the ball against the San Antonio Spurs during the first half of Game 6 in the NBA basketball Western Conference finals, Wednesday, June 6, 2012, in Oklahoma City. (AP Photo/Sue Ogrocki)
What We're Following See More »
Just a day after Donald Trump called her a bigot, Hillary Clinton delivered a scathing speech tying Trump to the KKK and so-called “alt-right.” This new frontier of debate between the two candidates has emerged at a time when Trump has been seeking to appeal to minority voters, among whom he has struggled to garner support. Calling him “profoundly dangerous,” Clinton didn’t hold back on her criticisms of Trump. “He is taking hate groups mainstream and helping a radical fringe take over the Republican Party,” Clinton said.
Hillary Clinton leads Donald Trump 51%-41% in a new Quinnipiac poll released today. Her lead shrinks to seven points when the third-party candidates are included. In that scenario, she leads 45%-38%, with Gary Johnson pulling 10% and Jill Stein at 4%.
Is the Clinton family backtracking on some of its promises to insulate the White House from the Clinton Foundation? Opposition researchers will certainly try to portray it that way. A foundation spokesman said yesterday that Chelsea Clinton will stay on its board, and that the "foundation’s largest project, the Clinton Health Access Initiative, might continue to accept foreign government and corporate funding."
"Four Iranian ships made reckless maneuvers close to a U.S. warship this week, the Pentagon said Thursday, in an incident that officials said could have led to dangerous escalation." The four Iranian vessels engaged in a "high-speed intercept" of a U.S. destroyer in the Strait of Hormuz. A Navy spokesman said the Iranina actions "created a dangerous, harassing situation that could have led to further escalation including additional defensive measures" by the destroyer.